Unreported Substitute
 

Speaking ASA

Top of the 2nd, S1 is told by the coach to take a position in RF, but did not notify the umpire.

In the 4th inning, this player fields a fair batted ball and throws out the tying run at the plate. At this point, the opposing coach visits the PU and tells him that the RF is an unreported substitute.

What action should the umpire take?

Ronald, please sit this one out :D

Dont have the 09 rule book yet, but if my understanding of the rule changes are correct, the offense has the option of taking the result of the play, or, the runners return to the last base occupied, batter returns to bat and assumes the same ball and strike count. Unreported sub is entered as long as they were eligable to enter the game.

Also don't have the 2009 rulebook yet, but it sounds like RKB has the correct answer using the old rule with the known 2009 rule changes.

2009 ASA 4.6.C.8.

When on defense MAKES A PLAY and is protested:

a. BEFORE the next pitch, legal or illegal,
b. before the defense has left the field, and
c. before the umpires have left the field of play;

EFFECT: The unreported substitute is officially in the game and the offensive team has the option to:

a.Take the result of the play.
b.Have the last batter return to bat and assume the ball and strike count. All runners return to the last base occupied prior to the play.

So, Mike, what's the catch????

Take Mike's play and add that in the fourth the coach does not do anything but in the seventh decides to make a protest after a defensive play by the unreported sub. Sorry Mike could not resist any more. Bored and ennui.:)

Any thing different?

I was at the clinic and there was some confusion about the wording of the new rule and its interpretation as to when an unreported sub is officially in the game.

Comments on that pt?

If you have the 2009 book and read the rule you might come up with some of the same thoughts they did at the clinic.

What about the spectators dog?
 

The problem with the discussion at the CAR clinic was that there were way to many "what if's". My favorite one was "what if a spectators dog runs onto the field and is hit with the ball. The ball is deflected where it hits the umpire in the head. The umpire falls and trips the runner. What do you have?" :D

As for the discussion, I think the simple way of looking at this is that the unreported sub does not enter the game until he is reported or appealed. The coach can make a mistake on the original line-up, the player can play the entire game and yet, in the bottom of the seventh, the opponent can still appeal that they are an unreported sub.

I believe the clinics are an appropriate place for umps to ask what if questions. They are doubts those umps have and to get them answered is all positive. Those that know the answer have to "put up with" the learners.:). If everyone got a casebook and read the ASA clarifications and plays, then the number of what ifs would be limited to advanced questions and concepts.

On the what happens if a runner runs into the ump or the ump runs into the runner, the UIC had to help out the presenter in providing the correct ruling. It was not Mike.

As for a runner running into the ump and then getting tagged out, the out stands. It is in the casebook somewhere. That had to be clarified.

Yeah, it's in the rulebook, too. There are two defined instances of umpire interference; in every other case, the umpire is part of the field (sometimes paraphrased as a big pebble). That shouldn't require any added clarification. It is also clear this isn't a reversal of a call, a delayed call, or something not already covered in the rules (yeah, it's covered, because it isn't umpire interference). So, you cannot use judgment, or a "God rule".

Guess what. The play stands. Thanks for playing.

It isn't so much that "what if" factor, but the level of absurdity some of these questions can go. There are also times where it becomes like a media event at the White House. If the reporter doesn't like the first response, they keep asking the same questions or try to put another slant trying to justify an inaccurate perception.

Ron saw that side when discussing the errant throw issue on the double base. I don't know how many times one clinician or another stated that the throw needs to pull the defender away from the base and into foul territory for it to be considered an errant throw as it pertains to the rules. It can get frustrating not only to the clinician, but the others in the audience.

Ron is correct, a clinic is the place to get the questions answered. Unfortunately, there are a few who are looking to try and catch a rule or clinician in a gaff. When there is a questionable response, the clinicians get together with the book and make sure the umpires are given the correct answer. And I'm talking to the point of calling KR. That should be the end of it. If you still disagree, address the clinician during a break or afterwards.

Sorry, have to disagree with what you have stated. The substitution rule is that a sub is officially in the game, reported or not, when they take a position (offensive or defensive), and a pitch (legal or illegal) or a play (dead ball appeal) occurs. If reported (and a legal sub), that's the end of it.

If unreported, they are still in the game, but still unreported. And they stay unreported, until either 1) they are reported, or 2) it is appealed that they are unreported. Anything they do immediately prior to being appealed may still have a penalty; because they are still unreported.

It strikes me that the misconception (at least the one you stated) is between understanding the significant difference in being in the game and being unreported (while being in the game). The thing is the rule really hasn't changed except that the unreported sub, once appealed, is now legally in the game, not ejected. If you understood the rule before, there is no reason to not understand it now.

That is (clinicians got together) how it was handled at CAR. They got together and Mark came back with a statement.

I sure hope (I am naive) other umps do not try to one up or catch the staff in a boo boo.

Vis a vis the errant throw, many just could not visual what errant really meant and missed the intent of the rule. Hopefully, everyone now (those at the clinic) has a clear idea of what errant means. If not, then we have language barriers that might not be overcome.:confused:

Ron

Here is the issue. Turn to ASA Rule 4.6.8 & 9.

S1 entered the game in the 2nd inning. In the 4th, the offense protested the Unreported Substitute prior to the next pitch after the player made a play.

In accordance to 4.6.8, this is a valid and the offense gets the option of the play or one of the two do-overs in the book.

The umpire agrees and gives the OC that option. Now, the DC is on the field and cites 4.6.9 as a reason the ruling is wrong. The coach reminds the umpire that the player entered the field and a pitch was thrown. Therefore, the protest was made AFTER a legal pitch made while in the field and should have been considered in the game at that point in time.

Ooops! Now, we all know what we have been doing, but that assumption has finally been challenged because of the recent rule changes and we have been reading that part of the book just a little closer.

Agreeing the wording needs improvement, the official ruling is that rule 4.6.9 should be enforced as if it read the same as 4.6.8 which includes the qualifier of MAKES A PLAY.

Okay, the wording could be better. But, the coach's argument is incorrect, despite his effort; as long as there has been no intervening pitch after an unreported sub makes a play, 4.6.8 applies, and 4.6.9 does not.

Again, the issue isn't when the player is in the game; the substitution rule says she is after taking a position and a pitch or play happens. Nothing anywhere says that makes her reported; and until she is reported or appealed (effectively being reported by the opposing team), she is still unreported.

To suggest she is not in the game would allow the starter to re-enter without being charged a re-entry. Obviously not; and for the starter to be out, someone else is obviously in. That person is a sub; but that doesn't make her reported if she isn't. She is officially in the game; and her status is unreported, still.

Why not? Are not all of the requirement met considering the present wording?

Is the player not in the game unreported? Has the protest not been made after the pitch, legal or illegal?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the official ruling, it is just that the rule does not, which will be changed.

Agreed... You wrote exactly what I meant. :D

Gee, you might think this was some kind of SAT or IQ test instead of a simple umpire test [scenario].

I was chastised for reading too much into the question on the construction of the official bat.

We can't choose which rules to interpret literally while ignoring others. That's why the language of the rule book and the test questions is so important. With 40k umpires to maintain, the one common and critical factor is language.

The agrument that "everyone knows what was meant" simply doesn't fly. Best example is the rule change for the fast and modified pitch game where a ball is called on the batter instead of an illegal pitch, because it "was an illegal pitch and were always intended to be a ball on the batter only." So if I had called that play in the last of the seventh inning and allowed the winning run to score from 3rd base as an illegal pitch, and it was protested by the losing team, how would the ruling come out? Like it's written or how it was intended?

Ted

Don't know, Ted. How many times did you allow a BR advance to 1B on a D3K with two outs and no one on 1B? Until a couple years ago, the rule book did not support such a thing.

How many times have you seen an umpire not call a batter out on a ball not above the batter's head and caught in flight that wasn't a foul tip?

There is an entire section in the ASA rule book titled, "TOUCHING BASES IN LEGAL ORDER", yet there is no mention in the rules what that order is.

In Rule 5, to score a run, a player must touch first, second, third and home base. Nowhere does it state in which order they must be touched. If a BR hit the ball to the gap and touched home, second, third and then first would you score the run? The player completed the task required in accordance to what is written in the rules, so would it be overturned upon protest if you scored the run?

If you think my examples are ridiculous, I agree.

Not everything can be reduced to print. Yes, some things get missed or all possible scenarios cannot be noted. Also, because the rules are so intertwined, some possible issues are missed when a change is made in one part of the book that affects another. That is why we have clinics and rules clarifications.

That is why the discussions on boards like this can be so educational. There have been rule changes proposed and some accepted that came directly from this or a similar discussion board.

How did a thumb down get in an earliler post of mine?

Never mine. Must have hit that radial button by mistake. I did not want it there.

Thanks, Ron

The good news is that things are being corrected. Sometimes it takes a while. But when passages or test questions come up that elicit differing interpretations or opinions, that's a hint that the wording might need some refining.

Since I've only been umpiring a few years [played many more] I tend to deal with the language more literally than someone who's been around for a while and knows "how it was intended to be". Such that if I look up a rule to try to understand it better, I only have the language as written without knowing what the intent was or should be.

I'd agree with an earlier opinion that poorly worded test questions and/or responses are more accidental than intentional. As a "national" organization with world-wide reach and thousands of interpreters [i.e. umpires, coaches, etc.] I'd hope for fewer confusing passages. I will give credit that in the few years of my darkside experience, that I've seen some progress in that regard.

Ted

Howdy,

This relates to ASA rules.

I'm back on this subject with a question. I've been updating some files I have on certain sections of the rules that I think I need to stay current with. As I was entering 4.6.C, I came across a quandry.

3. When they bat and reach first base safely and are discovered: a. BEFORE the next pitch; b. Before the defense has left the field of play; c. Before the umpires have left the field of play.
EFFECT: All runners will return to the last base occupied prior to the batted ball. The U.S. is officially in the game and called out. All other outs that occurred on this play stand.

4. When discovered after completing their turn at bat and: a. AFTER the next pitch; b. Before the defense has left the field; c. Before the umpires have left the field of play.
EFFECT: The U.S. is officially in the game. Any advance of runner(s) as a result of the play is legal.

To me, it seems like the difference between 3 & 4 should be regarding whether a pitch [legal/illegal] has occurred.

Consider in 3, if there is a runner on third base with less than 2 outs, and an U.S. comes to bat and hits a SacFly to score the runner. Since the batter/U.S. did not reach first base safely, rule 3 cannot be invoked. Even if they are discovered and protested before the next pitch. The U.S. is already out, but in the game. But can you return the runner to 3B?

I believe that is the intent of this rule, but if the U.S./batter doesn't reach 1B safely, it can't be applied.

Now in 4, I think the wording is clearer where is says "after completing their turn at bat". I believe if that wording were transposed into 3, it wouldn't be an issue.

This another one of those "we know how it should be called" rules? The wording from 2008 and earlier is also a little glitchy.

Thanx,

Ted

Or at least buy them a beer to continue the third world discussions.:D